The issue of same-sex marriage has rapidly moved from one which conservatives could safely oppose, to one which has become a political loser for the Republican Party. The party is perceived as out of touch with the overall sentiment of the nation by many young voters and independents. Although opposition to same-sex marriage is still a safe position for Republicans in red states where there are large numbers of socially conservative voters, demographic trends and high-profile Supreme Court cases like DOMA and Prop 8 will eventually make opposition to same-sex marriage political suicide in all but the reddest of states.
On the national level, momentum among Republicans is already shifting. Republican leaders, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, and Republican Senator Rob Portman have all come out in favor of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Former Republican governors, congressmen, and advisors recently signed an amicus brief (voluntary legal testimony) arguing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The RNC report detailing why Republicans were so badly beaten last November urges Republicans to soften rhetoric against same-sex marriage.
Socially conservative Republicans do not necessarily need to compromise their personal beliefs regarding homosexuality. However, the right of a same-sex couple to marry should first and foremost be a civil rights issue. The Republican Party can support same-sex marriage on the grounds that the government should not intrude on the private decisions and contracts made between consenting adults. By shifting the issue into the framework of civil rights, Republicans can uphold their values by protecting the rights of even those that they disagree with. The Republican Party has historically understood the importance of individual responsibility and a government that intrudes as little as possible in the private lives of its citizens. On the issue of same-sex marriage, the national sentiment has shifted to a point where Republicans have the opportunity to be both politically adept and philosophically consistent.

Superstorm Sandy left billions of dollars of devastation in its wake, and New Jersey shore-area towns are deep in the process of cleaning up in time for the summer season. Local governments, spurred by promises of aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have expedited their efforts to get contracts awarded and construction underway.

But some towns have come under attack from outside groups for the choices they’ve made in that that effort. Most recently, the Monmouth County boroughs of Belmar and Avon have felt the ire of Rainforest Relief, a New York City based organization that promotes itself as being dedicated to the preservation of Central American rainforests.

Belmar will spend nearly $7 million to replace the more than 1 mile of boardwalk destroyed by the epic storm. That project was jeopardized by Rainforest Relief’s threat to tie up the rebuilding work in court over the borough’s stated intention to use ipe wood in the construction.

The environmental group objects to the use of the wood because, it contends, the wood is harvested illegally and use of rainforest woods has a negative impact on the environment, worldwide.

Belmar Mayor Matt Doherty said the borough made a business decision to instead use a synthetic plastic material to rebuild, mainly because the town could not afford the estimated three-month delay in starting construction while the case wound its way through the courts.

Avon is now facing the same situation over its decision to use ipe wood in rebuilding its mile-long boardwalk.

Rainforest Relief has launched an email campaign targeted to the borough’s Board of Commissioners in an effort to get them to reverse their decision to use the wood, which the commissioners say is not going to happen.

The group and its partners are threatening a summer boycott and picketing of the boardwalk if the wood is used.

Questionable environmental benefits of using the synthetic material aside, the ethical concerns raised by an outside group threatening to economically harm a tourism-dependent town in the first season after a devastating storm have yet to be addressed, but most definitely should be.

The European Union is currently discussing quotas of 40% women on company boards. Yet were the European Parliament a board, it would fail to meet its own quota as only 34% of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are women. The British Parliament, which has so far resisted talk of quotas, would do even worse: only 22% of MPs are female, roughly in line with the world average of 20.4%. Only the Nordic countries would reach it: they average 42% female parliamentarians.
Why are women so under-represented in politics? Is it discrimination or the differing natures of men and women? Certainly there have been very successful women in the political world. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher made history by becoming our first female Prime Minister, and although a divisive figure there is little doubt that she left her mark on the political landscape both nationally and internationally. Yet critics, particularly feminist critics often point to her adoption of traditionally ‘male’ characteristics in order to rise to success. The charge is that she had to make herself more masculine in order to fit into a man’s world.
Others point out that the political lifestyle doesn’t blend well with family life. The European Parliament is more family friendly as all business takes place during working hours, which surely helps explain its ability to attract more women. Other parliaments across the world wishing to attract women might want to take note: if you want equality in the chamber, the job has to change.

Given the rise of finances and support from outside organizations and the branding power of groups such as Move-On and the Tea Party, it is appropriate to question the role of political parties in the electoral process. Traditionally, political parties provided a platform that grounded candidates, financial and organization support, and a readily available grass roots organization. However, in each of these areas, the major parties have ceded or lost their position.
Platforms have become more of a theatrical back drop for candidates than any firm set of principles to which candidates feel they must adhere. A review of speeches from across the political spectrum shows very few mentions of a platform. Even when planks from the platform seem to define the difference between parties (for example, the GOP’s pro-life stance) the platform itself is hardly referenced.
Political parties are no longer the source of funding they once were. As PACs and candidates’ own fund raising power have increased, the money available to the parties from donations, and hence the ability of a party to dole out funds, have declined dramatically. The money that does come in to party organizations is used with increasing frequency to put on events rather than for direct candidate support.
With the rise in the internet, and disintermediation in general, those who wish to participate in the political process tend to gravitate towards the niche organizations or the candidate apparatus itself, thus removing even the human capital from the balance sheet of the parties.

Poverty and the U.S Government
Poverty data provide imperative mechanisms to assess a nation’s economic well-being. However, the fact that the people living under the poverty line in the United States are multifaceted and diversified implies that poverty cannot be characterized based on a single dimension. This has an implication that poverty rates in the US vary based on aspects such as age, race and ethnicity, gender among other facets that could lead in inequality in education, healthcare and the community at large. This paper offers an argumentative analysis of poverty in the US.
It ought to be noted that in measuring the US poverty levels and inequality, interest on consumer debt ought to be taken into account. Poverty in the US is attributed to the consumer indebtedness that has been growing sharply over the last four decades. The consumer debt interest has been growing faster than the median household income leading to the reduction of the real wages and real incomes for a typical family unit in the United States. Since the US government uses the increasing share of household income to pay for the consumer debt leads to insufficient income available to purchase commodities. The government’s measure of the share of households with earnings below the poverty line belittles the problem of poverty in the US when the increasing debt burden is not considered.

The Chinese are always very strategic and defensive in their objectives. First, they are traders, probably the greatest traders in the world. Their economy and strength is based on their ability to easily, cheaply and safely move their goods to distant markets. As long as the Americans control the seas, the Chinese do not have control over their economy nor over their future. No matter how rich and successful they become, they must always bow to the king of the castle who controls the waves. There is always a threat to their ability to trade lying below the surface just waiting to bite them. This worries and concerns them.

The problem is that the Chinese ports sit behind a natural barrier that blocks them from easily getting out of the China Sea. The borders of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Indonesia restrict China’s access to the Pacific Ocean. The open seas can only be gained by the Chinese ships passing through a few very narrow channels. These channels can be very easily blockaded by the U.S. navy.

The naval bases that the United States set up around the China Sea, after the Spanish American war in 1898 and the Second World War in 1945, are still in place. After what happened at Pearl Harbor, the U.S., whether they admit it or not, are paranoid about a sneak attack from the Far East. Both the Chinese and the U.S. believe that within hours the U.S. could stop the flow of raw materials into China and the flow of finished goods out of China. A third of the world’s maritime shipping passes through these channels.

China produces about five times more than it needs for its domestic market. This means it must export if it is too survive. The irony is that China is the world’s primary manufacturer of low cost goods because the U.S. Navy now protects their trade routes. What happens if the U.S. can no longer protect their trade routes or chooses not to? Being good strategists, the Chinese must always prepare for the worse possible scenario. They face the dilemma of asserting a historic maritime claim to the waters between the Sea of Japan in the northeast to the Gulf of Tonkin in the south.

“While China cherishes access to American consumers, they actually have more trade with Europe and other nations than they do with the United States. The U.S. only has five percent of the world’s population and while it is a wealthy, five percent, it is still only five percent.

The 2012 election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was hotly contested to say the least. Despite his shaky approvals and anti-sentiment from the Tea Party Republicans, Obama survived his bid for re-election in November. He will be sworn in to a second term as president on January 21. With his first term drawing to a close, many are still concerned about what kind of direction the country is going in. At the start of the new year, Congress and the White House worked to avert the fiscal cliff crisis. However, many Americans saw a decrease in pay due to the recent increase on the social security tax.
In wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut this past December, it seems that gun control appears to top the agenda. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has already submitted legislation calling for certain restrictions on guns and ammunition. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is looking to fill three top cabinet vacancies. Leaving will be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Obama has made appointments to replace the outgoing cabinet members. More notably, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is widely expected to become the next Secretary of State upon confirmation from the Senate. Obama also appointed former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon. Unlike Kerry, Hagel could face a more bumpy confirmation. Unlike Kerry, Hagel could face a more bumpy confirmation. Hagel previously served as a United States Senator from Nebraska.

Out of every emergency and disaster, come lessons learned. From the Trade Center to Hurricane Katrina to local law enforcement incidents, there is one recurring message: communications.

From confusing agency specific code-speak to incompatible radio frequencies, when responders can’t share information, incident response is compromised. Since the 9-11 terrorist attack, the name of the game has been interoperability. Response agencies are now considered as inter-working parts of a greater whole.

The federal government through the FCC, mandated “narrow banding,” which migrated public safety communications nationwide into the same frequency range. This had considerable effect on local governments who still used a hodgepodge of often outdated radio equipment. However, despite the cost and logistical problems, the program has been very successful. With their “800-radios,” an incident commander can communicate with resources all over the region. Ambulances can be redirected from overburdened hospitals to other facilities.

There has also been a movement from “code-speak” to plain consistent language in radio communications. Under the National Incident Management System (NIMS), roles in incident response are standardized. Regardless of their everyday rank, responders in the Incident Management System (ICS) are Commanders, Chiefs, Directors, or Leaders. Before, a radio message might come in for “the Chief.” Unfortunately, the site might be swarming with fire chiefs and bureau chiefs. Now, the message will come in for the Chief of Logistics at the Base Station. As everyone is trained the same, the message will get where it needs to go. Saved time can mean saved lives.

The Problem of Women's Political Partercipation in Italy
Abstract

In spite of all new opportunities, Italian women partecipate very little in political life. Among political scientists, women have traditionally been viewed as avowedly “apolitical.” In this article we trie to understand why the women have usually, not only in Italy, an “apolitical culture.”

Until the late 70’s, the contemporary literature relating to political science reflected the traditional vision of politics as a "male activity," often based on Campbell's assertion for which the woman accepts the man's leadership, that is why we must not expect that she may become a political subject able to direct her actions. In essence, some Italian and foreign scholars seemed more or less to make “sexist” judgements. (Campbell, 1960, p. 489). With regard to Italy, the main causes of the so-called political “apathy” of women in Italian society can be historically traced back to three factors: 1) the atavistic differentiation of roles, according to which the man goes out to work, while the woman stays at home; 2) the lower level of education of women than that of men; 3) the so-called “occupational segregation,” whereby the woman is generally holds low-skilled jobs. We must also point out that, historically, in Italy the struggle for women's rights began later than in other European countries, and into enormous difficulties. Even among the most educated women there were considerable differences about the question of women's suffrage. So, while in 1866 a woman of exceptional prestige such as Princess of Belgiojoso was very sensitive towards the problem of women’s rights , other women were contrary that the Kingdom of Italy assured equal rights for men and women.

Princess of Belgiojoso wrote: " The Italian women were for centuries without culture and without any responsibility in public affairs [...] If today they want a new order of things, they must arm themselves with patience in order to prepare the ground." As C. Fauré wrote, “In Italy a sudden interest in women’s rights on the part of a great political figure, Princess Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso (1808-1871) […] was opposed in the idea of women’s intellectual and moral inferiority, and she wrote an article in favor of gilrs’ education entitled ‘Della presente condizione delle donne e del loro avvenire’ (On the Present Condition of Women and Their Future, in Nuova Antologia di scienze lettere ed arti, 31 January 1866).” (Fauré, 2003, p. 487).

The Italian “Suffragette Movement” raised only in the early 20th century. In 1906 appeared an article by the doctor Maria Montessori (1870-1952), who “remained committed to feminism throughout her life” (Malatesta, 2011, p. 129), in which she called all women to register as a voter by enrolling for the electoral roll, "because no law prohibited it." Some female students responded to the appeal of Maria Montessori, and the Italian Committee for women's suffrage raised. The judiciary expressed a contrary opinion, but meantime the Italian suffraggette movement, with its demonstrations, forced the parties to open a debate on the issue of voting rights for women. (Parca, 1977, pp. 50-51). The case in question , however, fell because of turbulent years in which lived the Italian politics during the rise of the Fascist movement.

During the second fascist decade, although Mussolini had acquired charismatic connotations among the women, as the “protector of widows and orphans” of the “Great War,” few of them really acquired some political rights. For example, in 1926 a bill in favour of the extension of the right of women to vote in administrative elections was proposed; however, it just interested more than a million out of a total number of 12-13 million of Italian women; among them were the widows of the fallen, some women decorated for their military valor, women recognized as “head of household,” those who had completed at least elementary school and, finally, women who paid at
least L. 50 per year. Moreover, we must not forget that the Catholic Church exerted significant influence over women in Italy. For example, in 1931, Pope Pius XI (1857-1939), in his encyclical Quadragesimo anno, wrote that “the mothers must work at home [...] Often some women, as their husband's salary is insufficient, are forced to work outside the home [ ...] and it creates a bad disruption, that we must by all means remove " ( Momigliano, 1973, p. 932)

Thus, there were profound historical reasons of the allegedly “apathetic” historical role of the Italian women in politics. We believe that the "marginality" of Italian women's towards on politics are based on historical reasons. We disagree profoundly with those who, in the past (starting with Aristotle) and today tend to make a genetic female subjection, linked to the specific nature of sex. In this regard, we recall here what Vincenzo Gioberti (1801-1852) wrote about the alleged "female weakness": “The woman is towards the man what the plant is towards the animal." (Parca, 1977, p. 52). We are also in complete disagreement with scientists who postulated women's inferiority or women's natural inferiority. So, for example, “The philosophical detour taken by Terrerouge, which was based on borrowed biological arguments, sheds light on what was meant in the royal ordinance of 1407 […] by the reference to male succession father to son as a ‘right of nature’. Attributing natural biological superiority, a right of nature, to active male seed, and natural biological inferiority, a default of nature, to lack of seed, Terrerouge advanced a French public law of succession based on a male principle regulating both reproduction and succession.” ( Fauré, 2003, p. 9).

References

Campbell, A. [et al.] (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Fauré, C. (2003). Political and Historical Encyclopedia of Women. New York: Routledge.
Malatesta, M. (2011). Professional Men. Professional Women. Bologna: SELPS.
Momigliano, E. [edited by] (1973). Tutte le encicliche dei Sommi Pontefici. Milano: Dell’Oglio.
Parca, G. (1977). L’avventurosa storia del femminismo. Milano: Mondadori.

To a citizen of the UK, the 2012 US presidential election is quite a baffling show. We see the two candidates on our television screens more often than our own leaders; with their Hollywood smiles & World War Two haircuts, debating familiar issues which do not directly affect us. They are the charmingly grandfather-ish Republican Mitt Romney and his opponent, Democrat Barack Obama, easily the coolest man of his generation.
This is the main issue with non-US citizens - two candidates. Being from Northern Ireland, I am exposed to elections for our own devolved government, national (UK) elections, and, to a lesser extent, the Irish Republic elections, all offering numerous candidates and parties. Of course there are other candidates the American people could vote for, but how can they compete with Republican and Democratic candidates who, according to the New York Times, have campaign budgets of $881.8m and $934m respectively? These are scary sums of money, and lead to us picturing both Romney and Obama being controlled by clandestine paymasters, coerced to support specific agendas and policies. Not so much freedom of speech as money is speech.
Romney and Obama now face a crisis in Hurricane Sandy, which could be the undoing of, or indeed the making of, their respective campaigns. Each camp will be looking to score political points over their rival via carefully-edited sound bites and agenda-laden human interest stories. Whoever emerges victorious from the world’s most expensive beauty pageant, the rest of us await with baited breath.

Case Studies

Blogs for ChargeSmart

Tweets for PollEverywhere

Blogs for Author Solutions

(415) 795-4053 - Sales

(415) 795-3962 - Support

contact@scripted.com

Live Chat